I Thought Alito Was History’s Worst Supreme Court Justice. But Thomas Has Outdone Him | Robert Reich

Why It Matters

Thomas’s ideological stance and ethical controversies threaten public confidence in judicial impartiality and could shape future rulings on voting rights, labor law, and corporate regulation.

Key Takeaways

• Thomas called progressivism responsible for 20th‑century atrocities.
• Reich argues Progressive Era reforms curbed inequality and fascist threats.
• Unionization fell from >30% in 1950s to <6% today.
• Ginni Thomas sent 29 texts to Mark Meadows after 2020 election.
• Thomas accepted undisclosed gifts from GOP donor Harlan Crow.

Pulse Analysis

Clarence Thomas’s recent address at the University of Texas sparked a fresh debate over the Supreme Court’s role in shaping America’s political narrative. By conflating progressivism with the rise of totalitarian regimes, Thomas ignored the historical reality that the Progressive Era introduced antitrust laws, income taxes, and labor protections that tempered the excesses of the Gilded Age. Reich’s critique underscores how mischaracterizing that legacy can legitimize efforts to roll back decades‑long reforms, potentially reshaping the Court’s jurisprudence on voting rights, environmental regulation, and corporate accountability.

The decline of unionization—from over 30% of private‑sector workers in the 1950s to under 6% today—has been a focal point of Reich’s argument. This erosion, he notes, coincides with a wave of deregulation championed by recent administrations and reinforced by Supreme Court decisions that curtail collective bargaining and broaden employer discretion. As wages stagnate and wealth concentrates, the Court’s ideological tilt amplifies economic disparities, making the institution a pivotal battleground for the future of the middle class.

Ethical concerns compound the policy implications. Thomas’s failure to disclose luxury trips from donor Harlan Crow, coupled with his wife Ginni’s 29‑text exchange with Mark Meadows to overturn the 2020 election, raises questions about compliance with 28 U.S.C. § 455 and the broader Ethics in Government Act. Such lapses erode public trust, inviting calls for stricter transparency rules and potential reforms to the Court’s oversight mechanisms. In an era of heightened political polarization, maintaining judicial credibility is essential for preserving the rule of law and democratic stability.